Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-05-27
BLOW AT CRUSHER.
JUICE BOND ISSUES AN INJUNCTION
AIMED AT ITS LIYE.
The Chief Piece Of Coupon Legislation Of
the Recent Session 10 be Tested
in the Courts.

NJ. W. l.. Royal returned TO the city
from Baltimore yesterday with an i'm
rorant restraining order obtained from
Judge Bond.
The application for an injunction wa'
aims q ut defeating the recent act known as
The coUpou.cIusber," and the injunction
as sppheu for wns obtained, bnt Mr..
Royall Chains thst II reaches far beyenC
the destruction OF the coupon.crusher
sod elv,s practically the protection of ar
rjunciion from the United States Court tC
the smallest taxpayer who has rendered
coupons for bis taxes II he bought those
coupons from MIR. Cooper and received
from Mr.. Cooper his written guarantee o.
indemnity.
Boiled down TO IFS substance the bill i
as follows: Mr.. Cooper states that he ha'
sold coupons TO 26S persons IN the city oi
Richmond 10 pay their taxes with, and they
have rendered them to the Treasurer, and
now stand on the tender. and that he gave
each one OF these persons written guaran'
tee TO save bin harmless. He then reciie.
the provisions OF the cOupOn-crusher re-
curing Mr.. Witt as Commonwealth's At
torney to sue each one OF these persons,
claiming that under the State laws as now
existing the juries must necessarily find
their coupons spurious even II genuine.
HE SAYS 1T rs UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Mr.. Cooper claims that this law is I'M
constitutional. He then shows that the
names OF each one OF these 26S persons
bave been put into Mr.. Wits hands for
suit. lie alleges, too, that each OF these
persons will look TO HIM for indemnity on
ms written contract, by which he will he
subjected 10 loss far greater than $4,000
1.-THE amount necessary TO the jurisdiction
OF the court). The amounts sold indi-
yiduals ranged from $150 to $500 each.
WHAT HE CLAIMS.
Mr.. Cooper claimed the niunctlon-first,
upon the ground "that these lawless raids "
would subject him TO an irreparable in
Jury and second, that they would subject
him 10 a multiplicity OF suits
a. BY requiring HIM, Tor his own pro-
lection, TO furnish counsel to defend each
suit brought to test the genuineness Of the
coupons, whilst he averred that all were
genuine.
b. That he and the persons holding his
contract Of indemnity would probably dis
agree as TO the amount that he was liable
for TO each, and each would bring a suit
against him forcing him to defend all.
WHY TIE COURT SHOULD lNTERPOsE.
Mr.. Cooper also claimed that the ordi-
nary doctrines Of equity required the Court
TO interpose and shield him from these
multiplied and barassiDg suits, all depend
ing upon one point, while the other side
YVES forced 10 admit that the law under
which they proceeded was Unconstitutional
and thelr acls naked tTesplsses.
Tue EFFECT OF THE ORDER.
Judge Bond made a restraining order re.
straining Mr. Witt from bringing any one
OF the suits until the further order of the
Court, and setting the motion for an in
junction at Richmond on the first Monday
in October. with leave TO the defend mt to
move the Court 70 have 1t beard on 40 ear
lier day on ten days notice to the plaintiff.
WHAT Mr.. ROYALL CLAIMS.
Mr.. Royal claims that II this injunction
is perfecicd. OF which he processes TO have
no doubt, il not only Kills the coupon.
crusher, but kills also the bill authorizing
the Governor to remove treasurers who re-
fuse to levy, on the ground that II Mr..
Cooper has right 20 have Mr.. Witt re-
strained from suing those who have mis-
contract Of indemnity, he has a much
stronger right 10 restrain the treaSu-er>
from committing an open and naked tres
pass upon such persons under void State
laws.
In other words, Mr.. Cooper holds that
the injury to him on bis Indemnity con-
tract will be much greater where trea-
surcrs trample upon the rights OF his eli
cnts with armed force than where Com
mopwealth attorneys simply force them to
90 10 conrt under the penalty OF q fore
gone conclusion that their coupons Will BE-
pronounced spurious and OF n recorded
lien standing forever against them.
THE VIRGINIA STEAMBOAT CONPANY's SUIT.
Mr.. Rovall also brought an injunction
order for the Virginia Steamboat Company
iorbidding suit against II under the cou.
pon-crusher. Ii owed $500 taxes and had
rendered coupons in payment.
WHAT WILL THE STATE Do!
Attorney General Ayers was not in the
city Yesterday and could not be reached by
telegraph to give his views as to thi' new
litigation. Mr.. Witt will probably take
no steps until be consults with bin. but
together, without doubt, thev will proceed
10 make the most vigorous defence OF which
the case admits.
1t is known to be the wish OF the Attor-
ney.GeneTaI not TO take anv new cases up
to the United States supreme Court until
the vacancy on the bench is filled. With
an able and impartial inrist in the place OF
Justice Woods it is believed that the state
can make good her assertion that she has
the right to demand OF tenderers OF cou.
pons that they shall come into her courts
and prove that the coupons they have used
are real and genuine coupons cut from the
bonds issued by her.
This coupon-crusher" was one OF she
chief things for which the late session was
called and it was approved and pronounced
practical and constitutional by such emf
nent lawyers as ex.Judge Staples. eX-Judge
Burks, and Hon. John Randolph Tucker.
II was scarcely doubted by leading mem-
bers OF the General Assembly that Judge
Bond would issue such restraining order
as this, but the hope was that II after hear.
ing he made the injunction permanent, the
ITniled States Supreme Court would re-